Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mysterio wrote: But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
How exactly is that any more authoritarian or punishment-heavy than locking any thread that contains political content and banning anyone who posts it? I find it absurd to argue that a properly-moderated political discussion is somehow more strict than a complete ban on the subject. And insisting on collective punishment and "both sides are bad" nonsense creates more conflict. When everyone is equally bad and responsible then the troll lighting the world on fire is no worse than anyone else and gets to feel justified in their actions, making it more likely that they continue their poor behavior.
And I think it's worth noting that some of the highest quality of discussion (both political and otherwise) I've seen on a forum/blog has been in places where enforcement of superficial politeness is nonexistent and stupidity and dishonesty are bannable offenses. Refuse to provide evidence for a claim you made or concede defeat and drop it permanently? Spam inane memes instead of legitimate discussion? Goodbye, gone forever. People who make low-quality posts and all over the discussion get told, in explicit terms, to off and if they don't improve their posting quality they get banned. So despite the absence of a language filter the discussion ends up being fairly polite and reasonable with all of the passive-aggressive sniping and thinly-veiled hate speech and such kept to a minimum. People who cross the line are smacked down hard and either do better or stop posting.
This just goes back to the biggest problem with dakka's moderation policy: that it's almost entirely based on superficial politeness. You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words. It doesn't mean you're actually polite, or a good person, or contributing anything of value to the site, but the superficial appearance of politeness is enough. That's why dakka policy as presented here by the moderators is that a Nazi would be welcome in the community as long as they leave the swastika flags at home, while someone saying " off Nazi" to them would be banned for violating the superficial politeness rule. It's why a moderator (admin/owner?) explicitly told me that they would not be deleting transphobic garbage or banning the person who posted it, because it didn't use any bad words. And it's why they're so concerned with the existence of political discussion. The fact that it reveals existing disagreements and breaks the illusion that everyone in the community is one big happy family is unbearable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: Okay guys, Baron has started two general politics threads in the OT Zone, and this has our (the mods) full blessing!
Sorry, but this is just insane. You're providing official endorsement of a political discussion, linking it to dakka as semi-official section of the forum, involving the same members, and somehow this is a fine idea just because the URL doesn't have "dakka" in the name? FFS, at least with political discussion actually posted on this site there's moderation authority over it. If you're genuinely concerned about conflict coming out of political discussion then the last thing you'd want to do is to encourage everyone to go have a flame war somewhere else and then carry their grudges back to the official forum.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 08:27:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: . You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words.
This is not, and has never been, Dakka's moderation policy. People have been shown the door in the past for behavior that didn't just involve 'bad words'.
The real problem is simply that you disagree with where Dakka's administration draws the line, and so therefore Dakka's administration is clearly wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 08:36:19
Kilkrazy wrote: the current climate, where trivial discussion of pop culture games and films is fraught with social angst
This is an argument against banning politics! When everything, even pop culture discussions, is tied to political issues then a ban on "politics" becomes an excessively broad ban on practically anything that isn't inane small talk. Want to discuss the new Star Wars movie? Better limit it to "OMG I LOVED THE NEW X-WING" and not say anything of substance about it because then you might get into politics.
And of course the bias issue appears here as well. A ban on politics doesn't remove the politics from the subject, it just establishes the status quo as the only acceptable position to discuss. For example, discussion of female marines is banned (and will inevitably lead to politics) but discussion of male marines is not. The absence of female miniatures in GW's most important product line is taken for granted by forum policy, and dissenting voices are told to shut up or get out. And that "shut up or get out" policy is almost certainly going to be biased, with locking/bans done primarily to threads/posters who disagree with a moderator's opinion on the subject. There is no such thing as neutrality here, the only question is which side of the issue you're on.
Peregrine wrote: . You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words.
This is not, and has never been, Dakka's moderation policy.
In official words, no. In practice that's exactly what it is. I can't even count the number of times I've seen appalling things said and not deleted as long as there aren't any bad words included. And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 08:39:09
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: . And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
No, no, lying is absolutely punished, with a good paddling. We just keep a list on the off chance that those responsible end up all enrolling in the same primary school so we can sort them all out at the same time.
Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 08:59:40
BaconCatBug wrote: Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
That's an impressively huge generalization you've got there, Pardner.
Peregrine wrote: . And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
No, no, lying is absolutely punished, with a good paddling. We just keep a list on the off chance that those responsible end up all enrolling in the same primary school so we can sort them all out at the same time.
Glad to see you responding to the substance of the criticism instead of making a bad joke about it...
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
BaconCatBug wrote: Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
So your argument in defence of allowing politics is that the mods ban one half of the political membership in order to ensure that discourse is polite and respectful. And of course without quite stating which half we might have to assume it could be both halves! So the solution is simple - allow politics but ban the membership!
The mods absolutely were biased in the politics threads. Look at the posts of Kilkrazy and Reds8n in those threads and tell me that they were impartial. Posters on one side of the divide, like DINLT, would get publicly reprimanded for the smallest reason while others like Mad Doc Grotsnik can outright call another poster a “bell end” without consequence. And of course, in a thread about this kind of thing they outright admitted that they’re under no obligation to be impartial.
I’m happy that the politics threads are gone, and that’s one reason why. The other being that they were just pure poison. But those of you on my ignore list as a result of politics won’t be coming off it anytime soon. I won’t forget all of the patronising condescending put downs and insults, nor will I be forgiving them anytime soon either.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the moderation policy of handing out sanctions in private is a good one.
Well, I explained what I thought were the problems with it. You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd be surprised about why you believe it to be a good one. I mean, you do say later than it can convert a bad poster into a good one, but I'm failing to see how the sanctions being private help. It definitely generate a lot of frustration for users who feel like they were abused with no consequence, but get punished if they answer in kind.
Kilkrazy wrote: I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.
I apparently was about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability then, because I'm permanently banned from Off Topic. Nice to know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey, good illustration, thanks FWC.
Future War Cultist wrote: Posters on one side of the divide, like DINLT, would get publicly reprimanded for the smallest reason while others like Mad Doc Grotsnik can outright call another poster a “bell end” without consequence.
Maybe Mad Doc Grotsnick was reprimanded. If not that time, maybe other times. You'll always see when you are reprimanded, you will often hear it when someone on your side gets reprimanded because you communicate more with them, and it's very easy to miss when those on the other side get reprimanded.
Unless it's not that and the moderation actually did only reprimand people on your side, I'll let them tell us if they gave the illusion of acting only on one side, or if they did act only on one side, they are the one who know!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:17:08
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Guys, as you can see above, BaconCatBug and Future War Cultist both posted about moderation being biased about politics - but in opposite directions!
As an independent, I've found this time to be really trying as far as having polite political discourse, not only on Dakka but in general. People are fired up, on both "sides", and the idea of having a beer with someone on the opposite side of the aisle has given way to much of what Peregrine has alluded to in this thread - that is, wanting nothing to do with someone whose beliefs are on the other "side" of the political spectrum.
This is just not a fight we want to be a part of on Dakka. The longer we've tried to find a balance in the middle, the more people on both "sides" have begun to resent both each other and the mods. We've decided that it's just too toxic for the site right now, and have gotten quite a lot of messages supporting this conclusion.
In the end, I'm sorry we can't find a solution to make everyone happy, but this is our best shot between what we see as two bad choices. We're not going to change the style of moderation to fit in politics - rather, we're hoping that by removing politics we'll be able to keep things how they've always been on the rest of the site. User alerts are already Way down, as the vast, vast majority were generated from just a few politics threads in OT.
As for where to go talk about it now, The Wasteland is a great option imo (for the thick skinned!) but there are lots of others, too. If another one also gets traction I'll be happy to post up links in the locked threads! But The Wasteland US Politics thread is already quite active for those interested
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:40:56
Ditching the politics threads is what swayed me back towards renewing my DMC come February. Before, I was honestly considering leaving Dakka altogether. But you listened, and I appreciate that.
Future War Cultist wrote: Ditching the politics threads is what swayed me back towards renewing my DMC come February. Before, I was honestly considering leaving Dakka altogether. But you listened, and I appreciate that.
If a thread you could easily ignore was the reason you didn't renew a DCM then you have problems, not the mod team.
Kilkrazy wrote: I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.
I apparently was about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability then, because I'm permanently banned from Off Topic. Nice to know.
I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
BaconCatBug wrote: If a thread you could easily ignore was the reason you didn't renew a DCM then you have problems, not the mod team.
I don’t pay money towards something I don’t like. Being insulted by other posters including mods is something I don’t like. I can ignore the thread but the damage is done.
But another advantage of the politics threads going is that I don’t have to talk to posters like you as much anymore; ones who can’t resist the urge to get a little dig in against others because they’re that full of themselves. So goodbye.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:57:58
RiTides wrote: Guys, as you can see above, BaconCatBug and Future War Cultist both posted about moderation being biased about politics - but in opposite directions!
Which, again, is certainly at least exacerbated by them seeing only the actions the mods take at their expense, and never those taken at someone else's expense.
Silent moderation make this (more of) a problem!
Mysterio wrote: I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
Can't tell if you are serious or not .
I don't think they will.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Mysterio wrote: But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
How exactly is that any more authoritarian or punishment-heavy than locking any thread that contains political content and banning anyone who posts it? I find it absurd to argue that a properly-moderated political discussion is somehow more strict than a complete ban on the subject. And insisting on collective punishment and "both sides are bad" nonsense creates more conflict. When everyone is equally bad and responsible then the troll lighting the world on fire is no worse than anyone else and gets to feel justified in their actions, making it more likely that they continue their poor behavior.
And I think it's worth noting that some of the highest quality of discussion (both political and otherwise) I've seen on a forum/blog has been in places where enforcement of superficial politeness is nonexistent and stupidity and dishonesty are bannable offenses. Refuse to provide evidence for a claim you made or concede defeat and drop it permanently? Spam inane memes instead of legitimate discussion? Goodbye, gone forever. People who make low-quality posts and all over the discussion get told, in explicit terms, to off and if they don't improve their posting quality they get banned. So despite the absence of a language filter the discussion ends up being fairly polite and reasonable with all of the passive-aggressive sniping and thinly-veiled hate speech and such kept to a minimum. People who cross the line are smacked down hard and either do better or stop posting.
This just goes back to the biggest problem with dakka's moderation policy: that it's almost entirely based on superficial politeness. You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words. It doesn't mean you're actually polite, or a good person, or contributing anything of value to the site, but the superficial appearance of politeness is enough. That's why dakka policy as presented here by the moderators is that a Nazi would be welcome in the community as long as they leave the swastika flags at home, while someone saying " off Nazi" to them would be banned for violating the superficial politeness rule. It's why a moderator (admin/owner?) explicitly told me that they would not be deleting transphobic garbage or banning the person who posted it, because it didn't use any bad words. And it's why they're so concerned with the existence of political discussion. The fact that it reveals existing disagreements and breaks the illusion that everyone in the community is one big happy family is unbearable.
The politeness rule is important because this is a site dedicated to the TTG hobby that wants to be welcoming to all hobbyists. The owners and mods of the site have stated that the type of no holds barred political discussion forum that you want is t ever going to happen on Dakka. The argument you make against the ban, that people not interested in politics can ignore the thread undercuts your argument against politeness. If you don’t like what a poster posts then put that person on ignore. If you don’t like the site rules regarding political discussions then discuss politics somewhere else. There was never going to be a special dispensation to allow posters to aggressively and maliciously harass and harangue other posters in a Politics thread in a profane and insulting manner with the intent to drive that person away from ever posting in a Politics thread ever again because they don’t meet your personal standards because that level of personal animosity is never going to be welcome at Dakka under the present ownership and moderation. Arguing for less civility to be allowed in a discussion that has been repeatedly ban for failing to maintain civility is a poor argument. If we wanted to be able to discuss politics and religion on Dakka we should have been doing so within the boundaries of the site rules but we weren’t we were creating more mod alerts, warnings and bans than any other topic so we lost that privilege and have only ourselves to blame.
Mysterio wrote: I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
Can't tell if you are serious or not .
I don't think they will.
100% serious and they certainly should!
I mean, I can't imagine you were banned from the OT for anything other than politics, so now that it is gone, there's no reason to keep you out of there anymore, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 14:28:30
Mysterio wrote: I mean, I can't imagine you were banned from the OT for anything other than politics, so now that it is gone, there's no reason to keep you out of there anymore, right?
I remember getting a message from a mod about how "before it was preventive, now the sanctions are going to be punitive", so I'm not holding my breath .
If the reasons for the ban is punishment, after all, then the reason for the ban is still there: they still want to punish me.
Don't worry though, I'll be allowed back in "2100/01/31 00:00:00". Should come faster than it seem.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
I will say this though, I am not sure what triggered those thread closings, I took a quick look and couldn't find anything, but I have mixed feelings.
For one, I absolutely hate censorship. Censorship is for pussies. I wouldn't dream of blocking out text someone else has written and hate it when it is done to me. If its purely offensive to the point where its just malicious, then fine I guess. But if there is one thing I can't stand about dakka its all the thread closing and editing posts. I mean, good conversations evolve, and if posters want to talk about Land Raiders that some how turns into cup cake recipes than so be it. I don't need a Mod coming in and reminding me that the topic is about Land Raiders. I can see that when I click the link. However, we are talking about cup cakes now. At some point we'll go back to Land Raiders. Who are you filing all this for anyway? Its not like anyone is going to go back and dig one of these old threads up anyway. And god forbid if they should necro it.
I do think that the way dakka is managed leads to a lot of passive aggressiveness that actually sets people off a lot more than if there were less interference. You have someone digging into someone, then the retort, and the one hitting back is the one that gets suspended while the other carries on to do more. I see it all the time on here. I have learned just roll my eyes at the BS. If the mods really want to create an environment in which people weren't so quick to be set off on here, they would do more about that. But I don't see that they do. And I feel hitting that report button is a waste of time.
Its going to be fun watching topics get locked all over the place around here when someone mentions anything political about any event going on in the world. Our world is deeply affected by politics, so if you are trying to segregate dakka from it, well, you might as well shut down Off Topic, Geek Media, and anything else not related strictly to gaming. 'Hey guys, just saw a great film on JFK' oops JFK was a democrat and its just set off a whole bunch of republicans so that's too political.
So I guess rather than one politics thread, it will be replaced by a whole bunch of other threads that get locked for mentioning anything political. Should be funny.
There is snark and passive aggressiveness all over Dakka yes. It’s pretty much a feature of the site. But I’ve found the majority of it comes from politics threads in OT. I’d say 95% of my ‘enemies’ list originated from OT.
Any questions going forward about what is/isn't OK to post, please feel free to PM any mod, or even start another thread in here if it's a more general discussion.
all over the discussion get told, in explicit terms, to 
.
